I always felt disappointed that Berger simply renounced his version of the secularisation thesis back in 1999, without actually reflecting on the theoretical implications of his recantation. In this new book, he takes a step towards doing just that. Basically, he is expanding on the brief note in the response to Woodhead et al.'s collection (2001) where he stated (I'm paraphrasing) that modernity changes the how but not the what of religion. Much of this hangs on the idea of multiple modernities and, despite Berger's always readable and confident tone, is somewhat of a hodgepodge of ideas. Like all good theories, it is open-ended, so that perhaps others will reshape it, but I can't see this being the paradigmatic change in thinking that the title implies.
Also, Berger's part of the book is about 90 pages, while the rest is comprised of responses by Nancy Ammerman, Detlef Pollack and Fenggang Yang. Of these, only Pollack responds to Berger's ideas directly. Even he misreads (I think) Berger at times, but nevertheless asks relevantly whether the new paradigm is actually old secularisation theory in a new disguise. If the public sphere (a term not used in the book) remains secular despite continues vitality of religion in a situation of multiple modernities, how can religion really survive? Interestingly, Yang calls for universal social science, but manages to be most provincial of the respondents by claiming that 'agency-driven secularisation' (e.g. in China) is what is hampering the emergence of truly free and blooming exercise of religion (e.g., surprise, surprise, in the USA). If there is one thing that secularisation theorists everywhere agree on, it is that secularisation has never been about atheism.
Interesting read for Berger enthusiasts but, as said, unlikely a beginning of a major paradigm shift.